U.S. justices to hear Confederate license plate free speech case

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

BY LAWRENCE HURLEY
WASHINGTON Fri Dec 5, 2014 2:12pm EST

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to weigh in on whether Texas officials should have approved a specialty license plate that displays the Confederate flag.

The case raises the issue of how states can allow or reject politically divisive messages on license plates without violating free speech rights.

The Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans Inc said its members’ free speech rights were violated when the state, which has a program that allows groups to suggest messages to be used on specially designed plates, declined to approve the plate.

The proposed design featured a Confederate battle flag surrounded by the words “Sons of Confederate Veterans 1896.” The flag, synonymous with the states that fought to secede from the United States in the U.S. Civil War, is a blue cross inlaid with white stars over a red background.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/05/us-usa-court-freespeech-idUSKCN0JJ21520141205

[nichomachus]

1. You have the right to say what you want

That does not create an obligation on anyone else to provide you the platform from which to say it.

[elleng]

3. Right and especially right when the platform they want to use

is directly sponsored By the STATE.

[dariomax]

98. There is a University of Oklahoma license plate in Texas

How could it be that Texas is "sponsoring" a rival University from another state?

Maybe the personalized message cannot be said to be sponsored by Texas.

[elleng]

99. 'TEXAS' is the State,

and this Texas license PLATE, the platform, promotes the Sooners.

[dariomax]

100. U. Of Oklahoma also sponsors its logo and message

That's why Sotomayor called it a "hybrid" message, as it has been called in lower courts as well. It remains to be seen whose side is given more weight in the decision.

[eallen]

13. So a city that puts up a Christmas creche, may ban a menorah?

The issue that will be before the court is whether Texas created a public forum by allowing groups to come up with their own designs. If so, it cannot impose viewpoint discrimination.

[nichomachus]

16. Where did that come from?

I never said that.

[eallen]

19. The government doesn't have to provide a platform. But if it provides that for some...

The issue is whether the government may exercise viewpoint discrimination once it starts to provide a platform for some messages. Texas isn't being sued because a group wanted Confederate flag plates, and the state said "no." If it said "no" to everyone, that would be fine. But it also makes plates for all sorts of groups. "Yes" for one, and "no" for another.

[merrily]

22. The confederate flag is the symbol of treason over slavery. When Texas allows other

kinds of pro-treason and/or pro-slavery plates, your point about discrimination may apply.

[eallen]

86. I agree. And when the court rules the state may not discriminate here...

Look out for all sorts of groups wanting insignia. From white supremacists to jihadists.

[HERVEPA]

28. That's ridiculous. The states deny vanity plates with things they consider offensive.

There is no right to have this plate.

[PoliticAverse]

36. Actually the vanity plate situation is also a free speech issue...

Judge: Free speech applies to Michigan vanity plates
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/04/judge-free-speech-applies-michigan-vanity-plates/15058711/

[merrily]

38. Yes, but all speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

[PoliticAverse]

40. And this will be yet another case the SC gets to decide the limits. n/t

[merrily]

41. Yep. But, sadly, the SCOTUS is neither infallible nor objective/apolitical.

Of course, we don't expect any human institution to be infallible, but we have a right to expect objectivity from a court.

[dariomax]

104. Do you consider yourself infallible or apolitical? Nt

[merrily]

105. Did you read past the subject line of my post #41 before you replied to it?

If you had, you would have known the answer to your question, even assuming that what I consider myself is somehow relevant to comments about the SCOTUS, which, of course, it is not.

And I am one person posting my personal political positions on a message board. I am not nine judges who are supposed to be reaching objective decisions collectively (though not necessarily unanimously) after a trial and probably at least one level of appellate review and oral arguments, amicus briefs, etc.

[nichomachus]

29. Not at all

They can refuse to give a platform that are offensive. they could refuse tomgive a platform to religious groups in general, but if they grant it to one, they should grant it to all. Your example was silly.

[lonestarnot]

74. Plate on one's property is required by the state and if plates are allowed to be personalized then

where's the beef? Although I did not know that in some places avatars are allowed. So who is to stop me from putting a slong on my plate?

[merrily]

31. A city that puts up a creche is still free to deny a display to groups that believe in human

sacrifice for religious reasons.

[eallen]

87. I doubt it.

The state can bar human sacrifice. But it may not bar the mere expression of a religion that believes in human sacrifice. You may consider that a fine line. There always will be such lines with constitutional rights.

[merrily]

88. I don't doubt it.

[yeoman6987]

62. Just weird. Just get regular plate like the super

Majority of Americans. I would not want anything special on my car. Bumper stickers drive me crazy too. Everyone want privacy until they don't. Plus I really would never put a political sticker on my car when half the country hate the candidate. I still see Bush 2004, McCain 2008 and Obama/Biden 2008 stickers. Why? I know it is hard to take off the bumper, but I find them ridiculous after the election especially. Yep! My pet peeve.

[elleng]

2. Sounds silly to me.

'the state, which has a program that allows groups to suggest messages to be used on specially designed plates' does NOT suggest the state MUST approve ALL messages SUGGESTED.

[LeftInTX]

11. I don't know why the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

said that TX officials did not have grounds to reject the Confederate plates.

[heaven05]

4. SCOTUS

let them have it, at least I'll know who my enemy is.

[dembotoz]

5. are there not anti abortion plates--same dif

[BlueJazz]

6. Yep, Here in weirdland (Florida) , they make Choose Life plates that have children on them.

Do they have one that says: Pro Choice.?? Noooooooooo

[7962]

8. They'll tell u the Choose Life tags are pro adoption, not antiabortion

[merrily]

32. What does abortion have to do with a symbol of treason and/or slavery?

[Hoyt]

7. One ought to at least have to prove they are direct descendant of Tx confederate, not just a racist.

I suspect Justices will allow it as free speech or just say hatred is a virtue, but damn -- we ought to have laws like Germany, France, etc., regarding symbols of hatred. Better yet, people ought to be more tolerant.

[LeftInTX]

9. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

must be full of RWNJs cuz they said Texas officials did not have grounds to reject the Confederate plate.

I'm glad the SC took the case.

[dariomax]

103. How many of the 4 liberal judges...

Do you think will side with Texas?

[Fred Sanders]

10. License plates issued by government under regulation are subject to free speech rights? Silly.

The 5th circuit is more a rubber stamp for radical conservatives than it is a court.

[LeftInTX]

12. Sounds like it to me

[Nye Bevan]

15. What if they allowed a license plate with a Christian message but not an atheist one?

Or allowed a pro-gun message but not an anti-gun one?

To me the simplest solution is to not allow these "messages" at all, but if some messages are allowed, shouldn't all viewpoints be permitted?

[LeftInTX]

21. It's time for the Satanists to get their plates

I checked the database and TX already has:


There is a pro-life, but it is fairly benign and can mean anything.


Weird, how did Remax get a plate?




But we've got a lot of good ones too:

***********
Only one gun related, but it's in reference to the Alamo


ETA: I responded without really responding, but after my hard work to put these license plates on, I'll just leave them on.

[merrily]

39. Should a "Rape a Minor Tonight" plate be allowed? Please see Reply 22

[randr]

14. It is just like saying that your ancestors

fought for Hitler or sided with the Russians.
So many fools died fighting for the wealth of the Southern Aristocracy without knowing what they were fighting for. Same today. They choose to vote for people who have not one bit of concern for what they really need.

[homegirl]

17. To the core

of the problem. The widespread American memory loss syndrome. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. Flying the confederate flag is yet another example of trolling....

Think about it.

What's their first reaction when they see someone object to it?

They grin.

[merrily]

37. It's a symbol of treason over the "right" to extend slavery to the territories.

The racist fuckers can grin over that all they want. It doesn't change their vast inferiority.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. What's sad is they like to think of themselves as "rebels".....

As they push for everyone to conform.

[merrily]

43. Yes, violent rebellion against one's own government is treason.

I don't know that I object to it, regardless of the reason. In the US in 1776, in France in 1789, in Russia in 1914, I probably would have sided with the rebels. Not on the side of rebelling because the US did not want to extend slavery to the territories, though.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

46. I would have loved to have been there for this...

[merrily]

47. LOL! Amazing how fast something a few of the 99% FINALLY said got to be a talking point.

How long did we have to put up with whining about alleged discrimination against the rich.

[Psephos]

48. The Ferguson riots make that a little less clear, no? n/t

[merrily]

49. I'm sorry, but I am not understanding your question. Make what less clear?

[Psephos]

50. Whether violent rebellion against government is treason.

The revolutionaries who founded USA didn't think so.

Neither, I suspect, do many of the Ferguson rioters.

The government itself always peddles that idea, because obviously, it is self-interested in preserving its power. It's an iron law, derived from history, that governments will use any tool in their reach to suppress those who threaten government's absolute authority.

Treason against a tyrant is not treason. It's the genuine version of patriotism. The problem turns on just exactly who decides on who's a tyrant, and who's a traitor. Usually those with the most guns decide. But not always.

[merrily]

53. I am not sure that Ferguson was even attempting violent overthrow of government.

Nor do I think that anything done in Ferguson changes the definition of treason. That said, IMO, not all treason is inexcusable. Did you happen to read my post beyond the subject line?

[Psephos]

70. Yes, I read each of your posts in this thread in their entirety.

I am glad to hear that you find not all treason to be inexcusable. I would phrase it somewhat differently. Some treason is justifiable, which means it actually wasn't treason to begin with.

[merrily]

72. I don't think the definition of treason depends on whether one side with the rebels or not

The definition of treason in Article III of the US Constitution is:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

As to the Civil War, as this thread suggests, whether you think it's justified may depend on which part of the US you live in and whether your politics today are left or right. Some, including the Governor of Texas, talk about secession today.

As to who was or was not justified, that may depend to some extent on who writes the history books you read/believe and, as to the US Revolution and Civil War, which side of the pond or the Mason Dixon line you were raised/indoctrinated in. I would say, even today, a healthy number of Brits would say we were not justified.

[merrily]

106. Not really. Justifiable homicide is still homicide. Allegedly justifiable treason is still treason.

And what is "justifiable" treason is probably a lot more subjective than a judge's or a jury's determination, after a trial, that a homicide was justifiable.

[Yupster]

82. The Confederates were trying to secede

Not violently overthrow the US government.

Texas, where this license plate controversy is being heard is an interesting case.

When the state legislature voted to leave the Union, the governor insisted on a vote of the people too as he was pro-Union. The vote was held and the vote went 80-20% to secede.

They didn't think that would lead to war.

After all Texas just voted to join the Union 15 years earlier. They didn't see it as that big a deal. In a Texans lifetime who was an adult in 1860, Texas had been a part of Spain, Mexico, and an independent Republic. Changing governments just didn't seem like such a big deal. They certainly felt they had the right to vote to join any country they wanted.

[Inkfreak]

81. I knew this dude who'd wear a t-shirt just for the reaction.

It said "I survived roe v wade". He was such a shithead. Just grinned & snickered everytime someone noticed.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

83. Yeeup...

[Feral Child]

20. Georgia issues those plates

also at the request of the (bastard) Sons of Confederate Veterans. There are several displayed on my block (11 houses).

I looked into it. The regs state that any cause may be showcased if there are requests made by 500 people. I assure you there are more than 500 racists in this state.

I have considered requesting Atheist tags ("In God We Trust" are quite numerous), but I really don't know 500 people, much less 500 atheists. There may not be 500 in this state, the Thumpers are extremely vocal and belligerent (that was a joke, there's actually an organization here, I don't belong. The real reason I haven't tried for tags is I don't want my truck vandalized. I run enough risk w/ my "Sea Turtle Hospital" tags).

[merrily]

35. Technically, the issue for the court was not whether a state that wishes to do so

MAY issue a license plate with a confederate flag (Georgia) but whether the US Constitution REQUIRES a state that does not wish to do so to issue a license plate with the confederate flag (Texas).

If Georgia has never been challenged for issuing a confederate flag plate, we don't know if the SCOTUS would say it may or not. However, it's easier for a citizen who has been denied something by government to sue government over the denial than it is for someone to sue saying "Georgia allows this, but it offends me, so make Georgia stop."

[Feral Child]

76. I see.

A subtle but clear difference. I agree that it's easier to sue for a negative rather than a positive..

[merrily]

45. PS, I bet if 500 people requested a "Fire on the Governor of Georgia" license plate, Georgia

would decline.

Meanwhile, I bet there is an atheist group somewhere in Georgia. Maybe you can find you some kindred souls, if you'll pardon the expression.

[Feral Child]

75. Yes, I believe there is a group.

I'm not a very social person, though, and although I detest organized religion I have no interest in interfering with anyone's emotional needs.

I rarely post in the Religion Forum, the exception being when I see a thread on the Latest page that demands that I treat religious folk with tolerance lest I be judged not properly Progressive. I 'tolerate" the religious by leaving them the fuck alone, as long as they afford me the same courtesy. I will not pretend that their beliefs are valid, though. Religion is a silly and dangerous preoccupation and I won't grant it validity by pretending it's a real thing.

Sorry, don't mean to start a sub-thread, I just get frustrated with being attacked for my lack of purity, even if it's just a passive-aggressive whine-fest.

[merrily]

78. I understand. It's a complex sphere.

[Feral Child]

90. Indeed.

[DFW]

23. Doesn't flying the flag of a sworn enemy of the United States make you an enemy combatant?

After all, the CSA took up arms against the U.S. government. What if some patriots decide to stand their ground?

Could get messy..............

[hollowdweller]

24. Here's a solution

Why not just use the confederate flag? Not the battle flag??

The battle flag is the one associated with Racists and the Klan.

[merrily]

34. The confederate flag is associated with treason over the issue of slavery.

[24601]

57. Easy accusation to make - but not as easy to prove. [After the war] "...Jefferson Davis, President

of the defeated Confederate States of America, was imprisoned with a view to his being tried for treason on account of his leadership role in the South’s effort to make of itself an independent nation. Two years later, however, he was released and went into exile in Montreal (in Catholic Quebec) and then wandered in Europe before returning to these shores to spend his final days in his home state of Mississippi. His release came after a finding by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Salmon P. Chase, that there was nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prohibited the secession of states. If secession was not illegal, neither Davis nor any other Confederate leaders could be guilty of treason."

http://www.aleksandreia.com/2010/02/03/secession-salmon-chase-and-the-treason-trial-of-jefferson-davis/

My reading of the Constitution is that anyone is not guilty until it's proven in court. Does anyone have a list of individuals convicted of treason because of the Civil War?

After the Constitution, I look next to US Law for indications as to whether it was Treason:

Public Law 85-425 adopted May 23, 1958 as H.R. 358

AN ACT

To increase the monthly rates of pension payable to widows and former widows of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War, Civil War, Indian War, and Mexican War, and provide pensions to widows of veterans who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War...

CONFEDERATE FORCES VETERANS

Sec. 410. The Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such... if such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the United States.

Sec. 2. This act shall be effective from the first day of the second calendar month following its enactment.

[merrily]

59. ? The flag is associated today with treason over slavery. That is easy to prove. Just take a poll.

Also, if you want to see if there is any basis for the mental association, just read the Articles of Secession.

I did not accuse anyone of treason. I simply made a statement about what the flag is associated with. What a flag is associated with today in people's minds has nothing to do with which individuals were or were not prosecuted for treason a century and a half ago. Therefore, I won't even discuss that beyond noting very briefly, and only in passing, that, in general, the priority after the end of the war--even from Lee's surrender--was clearly reunification and healing, not prosecution.

As an aside though, I'd be curious to learn more about the alleged "finding"of the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS about a case that had not even been prosecuted yet. Typically, a footnote about an odd claim like that would simply cite to some Supreme Court opinion. Your source, however, cites to a website called The Catholic Knight, which doesn't say much of anything about the alleged "finding" of Chase..

[24601]

60. Just re-read the Constitution and it's silent on polls. The law I posted has never been repealed

and remains the law even though all civil war veterans have died. You can Shepardize it if you believe it has been repealed or overturned.

[merrily]

61. The constitution is silent on polls? What is the significance of that in the context of

what comes to people's minds when they think of the confederate flag?


Must the Constitution mention Gallup or Quinnipiac (sp?) in order for a poll to be the way to determine what people today think of when they think of the confederate flag? That's common sense, not a matter of either Constitutional law or criminal law.


And I already told you that the law you cited--and criminal prosecutions in general-have absolutely nothing to do with what comes to people's minds when they think of the confederate flag. It's totally irrelevant to my statement. So, why on earth would I shepherdize it?

If you have a citation the case referenced with regard to Chase though, I'd sure be interested in seeing that, but only because the claim is so odd, not because it has anything to do with my statement. And the Catholic Knight website cited by the source you linked sure was no help in that regard.

[yeoman6987]

63. I thought all polls were crap.

I have heard that from time to time here.

[merrily]

65. You never heard that from me, but that is beside the point. Do you believe that they are

crap when it comes to finding out what comes to people's minds when they think of the confederate flag?

If so, why do you think that and how would you suggesting proving whether or not treason over slavery comes to mind when people think of the confederate flag? And do you agree with 24601 that the way you figure out what people today think of when they think of the confederate flag is to look at a document written in 1789?

[yeoman6987]

67. I was being facetious

Sorry. I am sure the polling would be around 80-20 percent.

[merrily]

69. Nothing to be sorry about. The actual point here, originally, was simply

that a poster suggested that the flag of the confederate government would be a solution because it is not associated with racism in the same way that the confederate war flag is, or something like that. I think that is a distinction only a civil war buff would make to begin with. Most people in other parts of the country don't know or care how many different confederate flags there were or what the function of each of those flags was. They just associate any confederate flag with the Southern states deciding unilaterally to secede over slavery.

And, I can see Texas being totally justified not to allow that license plate, even if it allows other kinds of political statements. And that, after all, is the point of the thread.


As to your facetious comment, if someone posts a poll 2 years out from an election predicting the outcome of the election, I am indeed likely to post that a poll that far out from an election is meaningless. That has been proven true again and again. I don't say the same thing about a cross sampling of polls posted a month out from the election, though, but I wouldn't necessarily take even that to the bank. That poll is either right or wrong, no in betweeen.

But a poll just to get a general idea of what most people think of when they see a specific thing or hear a specific thing? Sure, I'd trust that, sort of. And I know of no other way to get that kind of info besides a poll.

[merrily]

64. Deleted-wrong spot.

[24601]

94. If we go on polls, there is no end things that are tied to racism. You could probably get a poll

that says Obamacare equals racism. But polls are shoddy substitute - cite a federal court ruling that the flag equals racism.

[merrily]

95. S_L_A_V_E_R_Y does not spell "racism." T_R_E_A_S_O_N does not spell "racism" either.

Reading is your friend. So is reading comprehension.

Please stop responding to me about this subject. I have no interest in your agenda.

[merrily]

66. Just to keep the record straight, secession without the consent of all states IS unconstitutional.

Threats or aspirations to secede from the United States or arguments justifying secession have been a feature of the country's politics almost since its birth. Some have argued for secession as a constitutional right and others as from a natural right of revolution. In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

[24601]

85. If unconstitutional equals treason, President Obama qualified when his recess appointments were

ruled unconstitutional. Fortunately, they are not the same.

[merrily]

89. Please stop twisting my words. I never said unconstitutional = treason. Not even close.

Last edited Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:53 AM - Edit history (1)

This thread is about what Texas can or cannot keep off its license plates, consistent with the first amendment.

What constitutes treason is not my issue, at least not on this thread. That is something you keep trying to into this thread for some reason of your own. While I have my thoughts on what that reason might be, that, too, has nothing to do with this thread.

I did not cite Texas v White in an attempt to prove that secession equals treason. I cited it because you had claimed upthread Justice Chase had said nothing in the constitution bars secession. Given that Texas v. White says secession without consent of all states is unconstitutional, obviously, something in the Constitution does bar secession unless other states consent. Therefore, I cited Texas v. White simply to clear the record about the constitution and secession because I thought your post had muddied the record. Even though the law of treason has less than nothing to do with this thread, I cited Texas v. White simply because I did not think that the misinformation in your post about secession and the Constitution should stand on any DU thread uncontradicted.

With that, I will stop reading your posts to me on this thread. You obviously want to push an agenda that has nothing to do with the First Amendment or license plates; and I do not care to join you in making this thread about whether secession is treason.

[merrily]

68. Ah, I did find something about Chase and Davis, but not a "finding."

This is an article about how the failure to prosecute Jefferson Davis is so often misconstrued. Seems a lot more intelligent about the facts and law than the source to which you linked or the Catholic Knight website to which your source linked.

https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/salmon-p-chase-on-treason-and-secession/

Again, though, what people think of when they think of the confederate flag has nothing to do with law or SCOTUS cases. It has to do only with what comes to people's minds.

[happyslug]

92. Chase ruled that a state could NOT succeed, read his opinion in Texas vs White:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096&q=74+us+700&hl=en&as_sdt=2,14

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.

[happyslug]

93. Public Law 85-425 adopted May 23, 1958 as H.R. 358 is a Welfare Program.

As to Public Law 85-425 adopted May 23, 1958 as H.R. 358 that covered almost no one. The last Union veteran died in 1959, the last Confederate Veteran in 1964. Public Law 85-425 adopted May 23, 1958 as H.R. 358 was passed to eliminate all of the then existing pensions authorized by Congress between 1860 and WWI when the modern concept of Veteran pensions was adopted.

These old pensions had been passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President but they were all to individuals named in the passed billed. That is how you had to get a pension for disability at that time, Congress had to pass a bill making the Pension.

Starting with WWI, the US adopted what is called the Veterans Administration which was to determined who was disabled and entitled to a pension. Congress did NOT repeal the older individual pension but by the 1920s the persons named in those pensions had generally died out (1860 plus 60 years is 1920, thus any Civil War Veteran was in his 70s by the 1920s, more were in the 80s and most had died of old age).

Thus by 1958 we are talking about maybe a half dozen people (Both Union and Confederate), to old for Social Security (You had to WORK in the 1930s to get Social Security, by the 1930s such Civil War Veterans were in were in their 80s and 90s and out of the work force) and thus on some sort of Pension dating to the 1800s or on public welfare (maybe supported by their families).

Congress decided in 1958 to invent a new type of pension for Veterans, it is called the "Improve Pension". It technically replaced the need to have a private bill passed to change a pension, instead the veteran had to apply for and be eligible for the Improve Pension.

Please note, the "Improved Pension" is a welfare program for it depends on how much income you have coming in from all other sources. The only requirement for the Improve Pension is that you had served in the Armed Forces and your income form other sources do NOT exceed a set amount set by Congress and the Veterans Administration (The amount of the Improve Pension is reduced by all other form of income).

Do NOT confuse the Improved Pension with Half pay, which is what most people call a Military Pension. Half Pay is what a member of the Armed Forces get after their "Retire" after 20 yeas of service. Technically they can be called back into service thus they get half pay (Yes, an 80 year old veteran on half pay can be called back into service, as I said, it is POSSIBLE for them to be called back into service, but most never are).

Please do not confuse the"Improved Pension" with Compensation do to injuries while serving. People can be ruled 10% ,20%, 40%, 80% and 100% disabled AND receive a "Pension" to compensate for those injuries. Again NOT part of the "Improve Pension".

The "Improve Penson" is much like the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program run by Congress. SSI was authorized in 1974, 16 years after the Improve Pension was passed, but shared many of the same characteristics. First, both are reduced by any and all other income, both require you to have less than $2000 in assets except for the home you are living in, furniture in that home and an automobile AND neither program is related to your Military Service OR work history (Social Security Disability is related to your work History, but SSI and the Improve Pension programs are NOT). One other difference is neither SSI nor the Improve Pensions are called Welfare Program, even though that is what they are.

There are differences between these two programs, the Improve Pension pays slightly more then SSI. SSI is administrated by the Social Security Administration, the improve Pension by the Veterans Administration. No military service is required to get SSI, some Military Service is required to get the improved Pension.

Yes, the Improve Pension is almost the same as SSI and SSI has always been considered, as far as the law is concerned, nothing but public welfare. The VFW and American Legion do a better job at lobbying Congress then the Welfare Rights groups, thus the Improve Pension is slightly larger then the SSI amount.

In simple terms Public Law 85-425 adopted May 23, 1958 as H.R. 358 was nothing but a Welfare Program to help those people who had served and needed welfare, but at a rate more than what most states were willing to pay. Thus those former Confederate Veterans (and their wives, for unlike SSI, wives of such Veterans could get the improve Pension) get welfare, but at a higher rate than what most people get on welfare.

[joe_stampingbull]

25. confederates were terrorists

They murdered hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and held millions of people against theiir will.

[Throd]

26. License plates should just be letters and numbers. Enough with the cutesy bullshit.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

27. Keep it up you racist pukes...keep it up

[Politicalboi]

30. Driving is a privilege

Not a right. So no free speech should be allowed on your license plate. It's state issued. Why can't these rednecks put a sticker of their flag all over their bumper or windows.

[merrily]

33. Glorifying treason is not a free speech right in this country.

Whatever forum government gives, including license plates, has to given on an equal basis. However, government is not obligated to provide a forum for glorifying treason.

[sadoldgirl]

44. In this case the SCOTUS should also

consider if the neonazies want to put the swastika on their
license plates what the reaction might be.

[JoePhilly]

51. Let the racists Self-Identify ...

... its like a public service announcement.

It makes them easier to spot and avoid.

[Dont call me Shirley]

52. Way to regress, Texas

[merrily]

54. The State of Texas refused to issue the license plate.

[Dont call me Shirley]

58. Oops, overlooked that. Getting tired. Although, Texas is regressing even without the plate.

Wouldn't Sam Houston be rolling in his grave by now?

[TexasTowelie]

55. It will be interesting to see how Justice Thomas votes on this court case.

[TexasTowelie]

56. Great comment in the Dallas Morning News article:

Sounds good to me. What a great way to identify bigots around the state.

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

97. LOVE how this argument is for the Confederate tags... but considering states have laws against...

SHOOTEM
KILLEM
SHOBOOB
STFUP!
...
...
...

etc.

Limiting "speech" at the state level has never been questioned.

So again, is this going to be a 'special' right for rednecks and religious nuts...
and the rest of us with any other ype of free speech Islamic, Atheist, Rude&Crude is curtailed?

Gander goose.

[Odin2005]

71. After WW2 Germany made displaying the Nazi flag illegal.

Meanwhile here in the US millions of Fascists wave the Confederate Battle Flag, which is the American equivalent, ever day.

Fuck this country.

[branford]

73. The USA has the First Amendment, Germany does not.

The protections afforded to speech are significantly greater in the USA than other western democracies such as most of Europe, Canada and Australia.

A lot of speech that is unlawful or even criminal in Europe is protected in the USA. Moreover, much of American jurisprudence concerning speech is the result of hard fought battles by liberal organizations, often to protect politically unpopular left-wing groups like communists and socialists.

In the USA, no one has the right not to be offended. For instance, this means that not only can people openly carry the Confederate or Nazi flags, but they can also desecrate the American flag, without government interference or sanction. The government does not get to choose which political speech it finds acceptable.

Ironically, I would note that in much of Europe, where Holocaust denial, Nazi support and similar behavior is criminal, they have openly violent and bigoted fascists elected to European and national governments. Many of these individuals makes Republicans look downright cuddly and progressive. However, in the USA, where such speech and activity is perfectly legal and protected, and despite the gross hyperbole of many in our party, we have no open and proud fascists and neo-Nazis in any elected federal or state-wide office.

[bluestateguy]

77. The state has the right to free speech too

and the state chooses not to endorse a racist message.

Put a confederate bumper sticker on your car and leave the state out of it.

[merrily]

91. Never thought of a state as having a free speech right.

Why not, though, if a corporation has a free speech right?

[YarnAddict]

79. What do the "Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc." do?

Maybe that makes a difference. If it's a bunch of guys sitting around plotting another uprising, well that seems like insurrection, but if it's CW re-enactors, or people tracing family trees, or something else equally inocuous, maybe it's not something to make a big deal about.

[Inkfreak]

80. If they win, we'll know whose a bigot/racist/rwinger real easy. (nt)

[tabasco]

84. The cowardly prostitute majority on the "Supreme" Court

will demand that the traitorous flag of the confederacy be respected as a sacred national symbol and flown at every federal installation.

This will garner their masters, the republicans, more votes from the inbred demographic.

[dariomax]

102. How many liberal judges, if any, will side with Texas...

In your opinion?

[mb999]

96. The Confederate flag stands for everything that is wrong with this country

they lost the battle in the 1860s but they did not lose the war in the long run and it's been continuing ever since the failure of reconstruction. They've been in cold war mode ever since. Their so called "states' rights", anti-worker rights, christian theocracy, voter suppression, blatant support for racism, sexism, homophobia, and oligarchy. Confederate ideology certainly did not end in the 1860s. When you see somebody today flying that flag it's certain that they support those same ideas. Confederate heroes and symbolism is found all over public property, and honored and celebrated as if they won the war. It's so honorable fighting for an empire that was all about protecting the "rights" to enslave people for profit. I find Confederate symbolism as offensive as ISIS.

If the state has to issue these kkk plates because of free speech then they must accept anything. Not just messages that the reich wing approves of.